BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections cause significant morbidity and mortality for children with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Data on the comparative effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in this population are limited. METHODS: A pediatric AML cohort was assembled from the Pediatric Health Information System database using ICD-9 codes and pharmacy data. Antifungal prophylaxis status was determined by pharmaceutical data review within 21 days of starting induction chemotherapy. Patients were followed until end of induction, death, or loss to follow-up. Cox regression analyses compared induction mortality and resources utilized between patients receiving and not receiving antifungal prophylaxis. A propensity score accounted for variation in demographic factors, location of care, and severity of illness at presentation. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-one AML patients were identified; the induction case fatality rate was 3.7%. In the adjusted Cox regression model, patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis (57%) had a decreased hazard for induction mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], .19-.90). Children receiving prophylaxis were less frequently exposed to broad-spectrum gram-positive (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.87; 95% CI, .79-.97) and antipseudomonal β-lactam agents (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, .85-.96), had fewer blood cultures (IRR, 0.78; 95% CI, .71-.86), and had fewer chest CT scans (IRR, 0.73; 95% CI, .60-.88). CONCLUSIONS: Antifungal prophylaxis in pediatric AML patients was associated with reduced induction mortality rates and supportive care resources. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether antifungal prophylaxis should include antimold activity.
BACKGROUND: Invasive fungal infections cause significant morbidity and mortality for children with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Data on the comparative effectiveness of antifungal prophylaxis in this population are limited. METHODS: A pediatric AML cohort was assembled from the Pediatric Health Information System database using ICD-9 codes and pharmacy data. Antifungal prophylaxis status was determined by pharmaceutical data review within 21 days of starting induction chemotherapy. Patients were followed until end of induction, death, or loss to follow-up. Cox regression analyses compared induction mortality and resources utilized between patients receiving and not receiving antifungal prophylaxis. A propensity score accounted for variation in demographic factors, location of care, and severity of illness at presentation. RESULTS: Eight hundred seventy-one AMLpatients were identified; the induction case fatality rate was 3.7%. In the adjusted Cox regression model, patients receiving antifungal prophylaxis (57%) had a decreased hazard for induction mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], .19-.90). Children receiving prophylaxis were less frequently exposed to broad-spectrum gram-positive (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.87; 95% CI, .79-.97) and antipseudomonal β-lactam agents (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, .85-.96), had fewer blood cultures (IRR, 0.78; 95% CI, .71-.86), and had fewer chest CT scans (IRR, 0.73; 95% CI, .60-.88). CONCLUSIONS: Antifungal prophylaxis in pediatric AMLpatients was associated with reduced induction mortality rates and supportive care resources. Further investigation is necessary to determine whether antifungal prophylaxis should include antimold activity.
Authors: Oliver A Cornely; Johan Maertens; Drew J Winston; John Perfect; Andrew J Ullmann; Thomas J Walsh; David Helfgott; Jerzy Holowiecki; Dick Stockelberg; Yeow-Tee Goh; Mario Petrini; Cathy Hardalo; Ramachandran Suresh; David Angulo-Gonzalez Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Todd M Cooper; Janet Franklin; Robert B Gerbing; Todd A Alonzo; Craig Hurwitz; Susana C Raimondi; Betsy Hirsch; Franklin O Smith; Prasad Mathew; Robert J Arceci; James Feusner; Robert Iannone; Robert S Lavey; Soheil Meshinchi; Alan Gamis Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-07-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Alison G Freifeld; Eric J Bow; Kent A Sepkowitz; Michael J Boeckh; James I Ito; Craig A Mullen; Issam I Raad; Kenneth V Rolston; Jo-Anne H Young; John R Wingard Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2011-02-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: K Bochennek; L Tramsen; N Schedler; M Becker; T Klingebiel; A H Groll; T Lehrnbecher Journal: Clin Microbiol Infect Date: 2011-09-06 Impact factor: 8.067
Authors: Ben De Pauw; Thomas J Walsh; J Peter Donnelly; David A Stevens; John E Edwards; Thierry Calandra; Peter G Pappas; Johan Maertens; Olivier Lortholary; Carol A Kauffman; David W Denning; Thomas F Patterson; Georg Maschmeyer; Jacques Bille; William E Dismukes; Raoul Herbrecht; William W Hope; Christopher C Kibbler; Bart Jan Kullberg; Kieren A Marr; Patricia Muñoz; Frank C Odds; John R Perfect; Angela Restrepo; Markus Ruhnke; Brahm H Segal; Jack D Sobel; Tania C Sorrell; Claudio Viscoli; John R Wingard; Theoklis Zaoutis; John E Bennett Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2008-06-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Lillian Sung; Alan Gamis; Todd A Alonzo; Allen Buxton; Kristen Britton; Joetta Deswarte-Wallace; William G Woods Journal: Cancer Date: 2009-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Lane H Miller; Frank Keller; Ann Mertens; Mitchel Klein; Kristen Allen; Sharon Castellino; William G Woods Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2019-09-10 Impact factor: 3.167
Authors: Christopher C Dvorak; Brian T Fisher; Adam J Esbenshade; Michael L Nieder; Sarah Alexander; William J Steinbach; Ha Dang; Doojduen Villaluna; Lu Chen; Micah Skeens; Theoklis E Zaoutis; Lillian Sung Journal: J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc Date: 2021-04-30 Impact factor: 3.164
Authors: Yimei Li; Matt Hall; Brian T Fisher; Alix E Seif; Yuan-Shung Huang; Rochelle Bagatell; Kelly D Getz; Todd A Alonzo; Robert B Gerbing; Lillian Sung; Peter C Adamson; Alan Gamis; Richard Aplenc Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-11-25 Impact factor: 3.240